going to shore up our institutions of law and the institutions of our democracy, such that and there will never be another january 6th. and that the first piece of that is the passage tomorrow of the electoral count act and this signature of the president of the united states thereafter. once that is done, that removes the principle means by which the former president try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. the only other piece that remains is the one you and i talked about previously and that is the supreme court's resolution of the independent state legislator theory, which it will decide in roe versus -- more versus harper.

>> we'll keep a close eye on that. judge, thanks good to see you, judge michael luttig. that is all in on this thursday night. alex wagner tonight, nning, right now. good evening alex. >> thanks alex, great guest to have on at this juncture, at this critical moment for democracy. great show. >> thank you. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. his name is alexander butterfield. he was the deputy assistant to president richard nixon, and as the surprise witness during the watergate hearings in 1973, he changed the course of history with this moment. >> mr. butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the oval office of the president? >> i was aware of listening devices, yes sir. >> it was alexander butterfield, who told watergate investigators, and the world, about the existence of secret white house tapes that would,

ultimately, expose nixon's involvement in the watergate plot, leading to his resignation. if there is a modern equivalent to what alexander butterfield did that day, it is this person. cassidy hutchison. the white house aide who testified to the january 6th committee about what she saw happen, inside of the lighthouse, before, during, and after, january 6th. today, we learned that the similarities between butterfield, and hutchison is the accident. we see the release transcript of her closed-door testimony, before the january six committee. this is what she said about how she ultimately, made the decision to testify before the public. quote, i start to google watergate. there must be somebody that participated in watergate, that either had a similar job to me, and had exposure. how did they handle this? i did not know that much about watergate, but then, i came across this man named alex butterfield. it looked as if he had a similar role, and title, to what i had in the white house.

i found that he, a couple of years ago, worked on this book with bob woodward. i ordered two copies. i read it three times. he had talked about how he fought the moral struggle, where he felt like he still had to be loyal to the nixon white house. he said he talked about a lot of the same things that i felt like i was experiencing. the emphasis that, he butterfield, placed on the moral questions he was asking himself resonated with me. he was somebody who did know things, who was loyal, who had a position that require an incredible amount of trust, and confidence, but he ended up doing the right thing. it was after i had read this, i said, if i am going to pass the mere test for the rest of my life, i need to try to fix this. cassidy hutchison was not being hyperbolic about the level of current to took for her to testify that day. today, we learn from her transcript the incredible amount of pressure the trump replaced on her to not answer the committee questions, and

instead, risk contempt of congress in order to protect donald trump. hutchison told the committee, her trump funded lawyer, a man named stephen passantino, actively discouraged hutchison from telling the committee everything she knew. at one point, hutchison recalls attempting to organize her thoughts by asking for a look at a calendar so she could better remember what events took place, and when. she says, the trump attorney, mr. passantino, discouraged her from trying to jog her memory. according to her testimony she said, i am your lawyer i know what's best for you. the less you remember, the better. do not read anything to jog your memory. do not try to put together timelines. that same trump lawyer also telling cassidy hutchison not to tell the committee about the harrowing incident in which trump, allegedly, lunged at the wheel of his suv, and at the leader of the secret service detail, when the ancient refused to take trump to the capital, following his speech

on the ellipse, on january 6th. as she told the committee, quote, i said something to stephen like, yes, i had this conversation with tony ornato, trump's deputy chief of staff, when we got back from the rally that day, and tony told me that the president tried to wrap his hands around the secret service agents neck and strangle him, because he would not take him to the capitol. stephen said no, no, no. i remember he sat back in his chair and said, no, no, no. we don't want to go there. we do not want to talk about that. that is the kind of legal advice that staffers, people who relied on the former presidents network of legal counsel. that is the advice that they were getting as the january 6th committee concluded its work. as we learned from cassidy hutchinson's transcript today, it was not just the pressure of those trump approved lawyers to avoid telling the committee what you knew. hutchison told the committee she was also receiving offers of financial support, and promises of offers for jobs

that, did not actually exist. and, what she felt, was an attempt to buy her silence. but cassidy did not acquiesce to the pressure or the job offers, or the intent to buy her silence. instead, she said, she found herself doing something that very few trump aides proved capable of, or interested in over the years. she started soul searching. she started thinking about her role in president trump's scheme, and who she was becoming in the process. quote. i was sitting on my couch, in my old apartment. it looked out over the bullpen and the navy yard near the stadium. i remember sitting there, reading on my phone, like this. glancing out the window, and i just kept thinking oh my god, i became someone i never thought i would become. that self reflection, that was how cassidy hutchison found the

courage to ditch the trump-backed lawyer, fine new representation, and testify, before an audience of millions, and tell the country, and the world what she knew. tonight, we received even more witness transcripts from the committee, which we will get to later in this hour. we are expecting the release of the committee's full january 6th report, but, the testimony of cassidy hutchison alone paints a damning picture of how trump and his allies may have pressured witnesses in attempt to obstruct the investigation, and your testimony, further, showing us the extent to which those witnesses may have felt trump, himself, was running the pressure campaign. as hutchison told the investigators, she was nervous in her first interviews with the committee, because, quote, i almost felt like at points donald trump was looking over my shoulder. joining us now, carl cheney, senior legal affairs reporter

for politico, and former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, and msnbc legal analyst, barbara quip. great to have you all here tonight. thank you for making the time on what has been unseasonably insane news cycle. filled with, absolutely, explosive information. kyle let me start with you. in terms of this cassidy hutchinson testimony some of this a lot of this, we knew the foundational aspects. but, the gripping, personal narrative here. the sense of fear, of desperation, the anguish that this woman was put through, in the process of coming out to tell the truth, is remarkable. what surprised you most about the testimony as you read it for the first time in full? >> yes i think it was really just the committee's choice about putting this out on its own. it was intentional. it was to get people to look, specifically, at this personal journey she was on amid this chaotic period both in her life

and in the life of the country, as the select committee on earth's new information and evidence about what happened. i remember when we first learned about cassidy hutchison it was in a court filing about mark meadows. trying to get mark meadows the chief of staff to come in, and testify. we said, wow, she has a lot of information about when members of congress were saying, and doing, during this crazy period before january 6th. little did we know, that was during a point where she felt like the best information she had was still keeping to himself because of the advice of her lawyer. so, now, to hear the story in full and see that even while she was providing incredible information to the committee, how much she was withholding because of what her lawyer was telling her, really, i think, filled in that narrative, and explained why they saw this slow, increasingly explosive series of revelations from her, culminating in that public testimony. >> and when it comes around to this trump approved lawyer.

she was not represented by anyone in trump world,, and her strange father in new jersey, and effectively bags him for funds. so that she can have her own council, which is not affiliated with trump. she does not have the money, and capitulates, effectively, to trump world in getting a free lawyer, whose bills are paid for, ultimately, by the trump organization. i mean that with a lower case oh. does it surprise you that it took as long as it did for trump, and his acolytes, to get their claws into cassidy hutchison, given how much she actually knew? for a while, she was just dangling out there, left to her own moral anguish, trying to figure out whether she wants to be affiliated with anyone or any counsel from trump land. i was surprised they did not, immediately, recognize how valuable she would be as a witness? >> i think this story plays itself out several times, with other witnesses as well.

we know john eastman, for example someone receives closely tied to donald trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election, he spent months in court, trying to prove, actually, he worked for donald trump during the post-2020 election period. the judge, in that case, said, can you have a relationship with donald trump and he couldn't even get someone in trump's orbit to vouch for him that, by the way, this guy was our lawyer. this seems to happen over, and over again. although, i would say, with cassidy hutchinson's plight, with these mid level staffers going through these investigations, and these extraordinary efforts to probe the previous administration, that happens all the time. that's not a trump phenomenon. they struggle, and sometimes, are forced to take on favorable legal arrangements because it is expensive. you can spend many thousands, or more, trying to defend yourself. sometimes that is the easiest way out. >> that, was for a time, the path she chose. barr, i have to ask you about what the doj can do with some

of this. first and foremost, this notion, there's fear, that was felt by cassidy hutchison. it made me think, immediately, of a crime syndicate. a phrase that has been used with the trump white house. let me read an exert from the transcript. this would be a full screen for on the control room. it wasn't just that i had stephen passantino sitting next to me, said hutchison. it was like i felt like i had trump looking over my shoulder. i knew, in some fashion, it would get back to him if i said something he would find disloyal. the prospect of that, genuinely, scared me. i have seen this world ruin people's lives, or try to ruin people's career. i have seen how vicious they can be. what is there to be done with that if, you are the doj, and working on your own investigation into january 6th? >> certainly, there is the potential there for witness tampering. intimidating a witness to lie is a crime. it is an obstruction of justice statute.

so, i do not know you can read the face of this and say there it, is there is the crime, but i think there is sufficient questions to ask. i would ask cassidy hutchison, what caused you to feel this way? what was said to you? who set them? what did they say? how many times did they say them? some of the things that her lawyer, stephen passantino, is reported to have said, according to cassidy hutchison, is do not commit perjury, just say you don't recall. they don't know what you can and can't, to recall. even though she could recall. that is coaching a witness to lie. so, it is two different things. telling her to lie would be one crime and intimidating her or promising her things, inducements, jobs, other things, could also be witness intimidation. i think it requires additional information, and isn't in those documented in her deposition testimony? it appears that were text messages coming from some of these lawyers, with some of

these assurances. that would be dynamite evidence that could backup her witness testimony. i think there is, absolutely, grounds to investigate for witness intimidation. i will tell you what else. if they did it cassidy hutchison, i'm wondering, who else did they do it to? who else didn't have the courage to say no? >> absolutely. every time you read in those transcripts, i do not recall, you need to think, is that legal coaching? is that trump from trump? is that the pressure campaign? barb, to your, and the carrot and stick approach employed by some of the trump affiliate of council, we know what the stick is. cassidy hutchison is worried about her career being ruined. but, the carrot, the insensitive, the office for financial support, and jobs. i want to read an exert from the transcript. this would be the sixth quote, full screen six, for the control room. i remember justin clark saying something to the effect of, you know, and justin clark is affiliated with trump land, to the effect of, you know, it feels like we are not taking

care of you cast, but i promise, we are. we are on your team. we will get you a great job. you don't need to worry financially about the second subpoena, and this interview. everything will be covered. don't worry, just keep up the good work. no one is mad at you. just keep doing what you are doing. barbara mcquade, that seems, on its face, like tampering with a witness. >> yes. the key there is to show, the person who had a corrupt intent. certainly, lawyers, coach, legitimately, ethically, clients all the time. clients are nervous when they testified. they may be told, you're doing great, just answer the questions, tell the truth. you are doing fine. that is all okay. but, if there is a corrupt intent, meaning, either said wonderful things to you to entice you, if you're good behavior, and loyalty, or i threatened you, and try to intimidate you, the something bad would happen if you did not

go along with the plan. in an effort to influence her to tell something other than the truth. that is when it is a crime. so, just on their face, it does raise an eyebrow. you would want to ask more questions. but we need to find beyond a reasonable doubt. typically prosecutors want more than just one witness here, my cassidy hutchison. they will want some corroboration. that is why seeing it in documentation can be valuable. >> kyle talk to me about how you see the release of this, particular, set of transcripts from cassidy hutchison. not her first deposition in front of the committee, right? the first two, and a half, are basically under duress, if you will, if you believe her testimony. that she was being coached by trump council, to not be fully truthful with the committee. the committee has chosen to release this set of transcripts first, and we know they release 34 transcripts yesterday mostly, of people pleading the fifth. really, this is the first one that has some honest to

goodness answers, and boy, are they bombshells. how are you interpreting this roll out on behalf of the committee, given the fact we also, don't have their 900-page full report? >> well one small point to make, reddit the upset of this transcript that point out and say, we know you share this information with the justice department. they are flicking ahead to what they know is the next chapter in this,, being the doj investigation, that is well underway, and will surpass what the committee can, do ultimately. look, i think they recognize how important cassidy hutchison was to their overall investigation, and that these are some of the outstanding questions where she faced challenges to her veracity, after her public testimony. mostly from anonymous people, who wanted to challenge her in ways that haven't held up under scrutiny, or fully substantiated. she has taken a lot of, exactly what she talked about, the tax from trump world, that she was so worried about privately, we

saw the movie and full view after her testimony. so, i think they wanted to show, she had much more to say, a fuller story about how she ended up where she was, why she ended up in that chair at the end of june, delivering that explosive testimony. there was much more complicated than we would've realized at the time. even from what we knew when she appeared on june 28th. >> i think the sacrifice this woman was willing to make in the name of truth, honoring democracy, is something we should all appreciate. it is that extraordinary journey she went on, largely, alone. i think all of us should applaud her for that. kyle cheney bart mcquade, stick with me, we have so much more to talk about this evening. as we mentioned, in addition to cassidy hutchison, the committee tonight released the transcripts of five other witness interviews, including those of trump's defense secretary, mark esper and trump prosecutors sarah matthews, resigning her position on

january 6th. what they told committee in those interviews. plus, what this new avalanche of evidence being released by the committee means for the doj 's ongoing investigation into trump's efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power. that is up next, stay with us. y withs. u aubree. i went to st. jude because i had a cancerous tumor. casey: these kids, they don't deserve to have to go through this. my beautiful little redheaded girl has cancer. you don't know what's going to happen. narrator: please call or go online and become a st. jude partner in hope for only $19 a month. christen: i think it's the most worthwhile place to put your money, when it comes to childhood cancer. it's nice to unwind after a long week of telling people how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! (limu squawks) he's a natural. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

i'm jonathan lawson onhere to tell you abouted. life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions.

your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. >> so, it was obvious.

the situation at the capitol was violent, and escalating

quickly. i thought, the tweet about the vice president was the last thing that was needed in that moment. i remember thinking, this was going to be bad for him to tweet this, because it was, essentially, him giving a red light to these people. telling them, what they were doing at the steps of the capital, entering the capitol, was okay. that they were justified in their anger. he shouldn't have been doing that. he should've been telling these people to go home, to leave, thicken damn the violence we were seeing. >> that was sarah matthews, deputy press secretary of former president trump. testifying, this summer, to the january 6th committee about what led her to walk out of the trump administration on that day. well we were awaiting the release of the january 6th committee's final report, the panel has released more than 2000 pages of transcripts, from 40 different witnesses, as of today. that includes five new transcripts, hot off the

presses tonight, and in this most recent batch of transcripts, is explosive testimony from mark esper, trump's former secretary of defense, ken klukowski, former attorney for trump's presidential campaign, joining the justice department, only a few weeks before january 6th, and, immediately, embroiled and schemes to keep trump in power. and, a transcript from sarah matthews, working in a press secretary, kayleigh mcenany. in her closed-door interview with the committee in february, matthews testified, after trump said the incendiary tweet about how vice president pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done after he was, repeatedly, told to encourage violent crowds to stay peaceful, trump was resistant. here is what matthews told the committee. question, did miss mcenany described, in any way, how resistant the president was to including something about being peaceful? this is matthew's. just that he didn't want to include it. that they got him to agree on the phrasing, stay peaceful. matthews then summarizes this

exchange with the trump aide, as the team decided to condemn the violence on that day. i relayed again, i thought it needed to have a forceful condemnation of the violence, that there needed to be a call to action, to ask people to leave the capital. it was in a room in the press office, where others were gathered. a colleague of mine suggested, that he not condemn the violence. question, who is that colleague? this is matthew's, chad gil martin. okay. matthews again, there is a reasoning behind that, but -- >> okay. matthews again. his reasoning again was that he felt like by condemning the violence, it acknowledged that these were his supporters, and that it would let the media, quote, when. end quote. what he had expressed or was that over the summer, we have seen violent protests across the country but black lives matter protesters, and that democrats were never asked to condemn that violence. those are just some of the top lines from the transcript.

as for ken klukowski, the deposition transcript that was just released is peppered with privilege objections, and repetitions of, i do not recall. but, between those objections, an apparent memory lapse, klukowski it did say that he was a lawyer who drafted a letter from his boss, doj official, jeff clark. the loyalist that trump wanted to install as attorney general. as trump lauded away to remain in power. the committee describes the letter as a, quote, proof of concept letter to the state of georgia. asking them to look into election-related issues. proof of concept that are. we know that letter was riddled with bogus claims of election fraud. back with us for more on the revelations in these transcripts, kyle cheney, legal affairs of 44 politico, and former discerning for michigan. marc mcquade. barr, proof of concept letter how to pressure states into sending slates of fake electors, to overturn an election.

is admitting to helping draft a proof of concept letter for such a thing, i mean, is there a criminal act in there that you would imagine the doj is examining? >> absolutely. this is not just a draft letter for a legal purpose. this is a letter that would suggest to states, biden had won, that were swing states, but the legislator reconvene for the purpose of selecting their own slate of electors, based on irregularities the justice department had found. this is after the justice department had found no irregularities, to the contrary. they had found there was no widespread fraud. so, the letter contained a lie. they knew it contained ally. that part of it, i think, is criminal. the other role of ken klukowski here, is when it comes up for jeffrey clark, and the justice department, it looks like it is originating organically over there. but what we didn't know until he testified was, he was a link between jeffrey clark, and john

eastman. previously, he worked for john eastman. he didn't begin working at the justice department until december of 2020, weeks before the administration wants to end. what purpose could he have had to show up, and start a new job, with weeks left in the administration? unless, he is there to do the bidding of john eastman. so, when it comes to jeffrey clark, this is the same way that donald trump says, i do not need volodymyr zelenskyy to, really, investigate show biden. i just need you to announce that you will investigate. it's kind of the same thing. i don't really need there to be fraud, it is near the justice department to say there is. once the justice department says so people will believe it. it is only the johnny's theory through the justice department. the is the clue between those two segments. >> ken klukowski, affective, lee brought in for a surgical strike. he said, he's there for a little while, before he tries go into the private sector. that's later in the transcript. he did not have long term plans

for the justice department. he had a mission to fulfill, by his own admittance. the other thing, part of the share of concluding has his transcript is wild's, it did not affect me at all. there's a reason that the media, an american public, were given the cassidy hutchinson testimony, about the ways in which trump appointees, and trump affiliates, were coached to say, i do not recall when they were under pressure to give damning evidence against donald trump. are you reading these tea leaves the same way? the fact that we are primed with this knowledge from cassidy hutchison, and then given a transcript from someone. where he says, repeatedly, i do not recall, i don't recall, i don't recall? >> that is the inference people wants the committee to draw when you flip from cassidy hutchison, and her explanation, to ken klukowski. there are some moments in there you, slap your head and say, how do you not recall? there was questions about, were

you asked to brief the vice president on strategies to overturn the election? he says, i don't remember. they say, is that suddenly went remember and he says, well, i probably would have remembered hadn't happened, but i just don't recall. so therefore, it probably didn't. it's some of these things that are strange. he's a lawyer so, he can be very careful with his words, in a way, that maybe, cassidy hutchison was not as measured vote. but, when you see it over, and over, and as you pointed out, kendrick housekeepers only at the doj for about a month. barely a month. was there for an extraordinarily chaotic and tense time with drafting this letter. this extraordinary letter, at the center of all these january six investigations. now, i can't remember almost anything about it. really, it is just an eye-opening exchange. >> you talk about the conversations that can

klukowski can't recall. yes, there, is a conversation where you talked about the vice president. he also asked, whether ginni thomas, wife of court justice, clarence thomas, who we know, was very active in the stop the steal movement, very active in trying to push supporters to the capitol, or to the rally on january 6th. he says, he does not recall any conversations with jimmie thomas about january 6th. i thought it was interesting that the committee is asking about germany thomas we know there's, interested in toasters and firing. is that rich kyle? >> they did bring her in for a closed door interview that, as far as i understand, was not particularly fruitful. they didn't learn anything from her that they had already assumed, before she went in, or have seen in the text messages. but, the fact that they ask about her, in this interview with kim cockakoeske was a june,

and their second conversation with him. we still don't have the transcript of the first one. they called him back for a reason, asking about jimmy thomas. i think, because she bubbled up to the surface is an interesting player to them at, around that time. >> barb, can we just talk about unity thomas for a moment? she is a name that is, often, in the ether. there is all kinds of conflict of interest questions a lot of us have as it pertains to her being active in january 6th, in, and around, fraudulent elective claims. her husband, means a supreme court justice, has to deal with these very same issues. do you think the doj has ginni thomas as its list of persons of interest? >> i think so. i don't know how much they will pursue it. they will start by looking at the transcript from her deposition, when she was interviewed, seeing if there is any substance there that need to pursue. i also think, it's important for them to look at her email exchanges with mark meadows.

we have seen some of those, publicly, where she was urging him in very religious, biblical forever, you need to stop this evil from taking place, the stolen election. so, i think you want to ask her about that. she says that she, she and her husband, operating the spheres, they have their own careers, and do their own things, but i must wonder, whether she gets an audience with the chief of staff of the president, if she is not married to a supreme court justice? there's even a message where she makes reference to discussing the matter with a friend, which some have suggested is coded language for clarence thomas. so, i think it is something worth exploring. to what extent she is trying to exercise undue influence. we also know, there is a suggestion that clarence thomas may be the only justice who would go along with their bid to take a lawsuit, directly, to the supreme court. i do not know whether it means he is corrupt, rather, it just means that he might be

receptive to the legal theory. there is just enough smoke there that i, think they would want to look to see whether there is fire. >> quickly, barb, in terms of the amount of evidence we have here, and i will say, the trail of bread crumbs. the number of people saying, i don't recall, knowing what we know about what that response may mean. a number of people taking the fifth on basic questions -- will kind of table is set for the doj's, they continue their special counsel investigation who, with jack smith, is a tenacious prosecutor? what kind of table set with them, as they move forward on this investigation that is getting wrapped up by the house? >> it seems apparent, many of these witnesses will not be terribly cooperative. they showed up because they felt they had to, but we're not forthcoming, not being helpful. there's even a part of the cassidy hutchinson testimony where she said, she was coach for a stone power and ceo, and less every aspect of the

questions correct your apa is worse. do you host a television show on msnbc, hosted nightly, coming on the news that ap and? what he would want to say is, simply, nope. as if that's the end of it you, should move on. normal person would say, i do have show, because not eight, it's at nine. so, instead, what he wanted to do, is if any aspect of the question wasn't correct, you say no, and move on. so, i think, that is the thing that the justice department needs to scrutinize. go look at those questions, break them down, make sure there's nothing compound about them, and asked each segment. just a television show? is it on a movie? is it on a p.m.? find out which part that they disagree with. it can be tedious, and meticulous, but that's what you need to do with these witnesses who are determined to be unhelpful. >> i don't recall whether i host a show on msnbc. kyle cheney, senior legal affairs for politico, burma mcquade, former attorney for the eastern district of

michigan, thank you both for your insight, and expertise. thank you. >> thank you. >> coming up, every single president, since 1977 as seen his taxes audited by the irs every year he was in office, except for one president. can you guess who? one mandatory presidential of it did not happen for president trump, until democratic lawmakers began to ask questions. the answers that, next. swers that, next when our daughter and her kids moved in with us... our bargain detergent couldn't keep up. turns out it's mostly water. so, we switched back to tide. one wash, stains are gone. [daughter] slurping don't pay for water. pay for clean. it's got to be tide. [ melissa ] you hear about cancer.

i just was afraid that i would lose my son. you think, why us? you know, why me? why my child? [ marlo thomas ] you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. it is such a gift to give hope back to a family. as a dad, i'm eternally grateful. [ non-english speech ] [ marlo thomas ] join st. jude with your debit or credit card for only $19 a month, and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt. st. jude is only possible because of the people who donate. you're saving children's lives. you're keeping families together during the hardest thing they've ever faced. [ marlo thomas ] please call or go online right now and become a st. jude partner in hope. i'm jonathan lawson

[ here to tell you aboutcall life insuranceright now through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions.

your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. when you're through with powering through, it's time for theraflu hot liquid medicine. powerful relief so you can restore and recover. theraflu hot beats cold. hi! need new glasses? get more from your benefits at visionworks! how can you see me squinting? i can't! i'm just telling everyone! hey! use your vision benefits before they expire. visionworks. see the difference.

after my car accident, i wondered what my case was worth. visionworks. see the difference. so i called the barnes firm. when that car hit my motorcycle, insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm. it was the best call i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, our r inry a attneysys wk hahard i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, to get you the best result possible. call us now and find out what your case could be worth. you u mit bebe sprisised we have breaking news in this ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪

day of breaking news. january six committee has filed its final report in the house and according to the committee that report will be made public tonight. this evening. while we await that, however, there is this. take a look at this. these are all of former president barack obama's tax returns. from the year 2000, to the year 2015. we hear it msnbc dug them up because of the rigorous investigative tool known as googling the tax returns. and hairball present job and tax returns from the year 1998, to 2021. again, all the more public. all of them are online. you, as a citizen, can examine them, for over them, until your

heart's content. they have tax returns make you. cadet but on top the long standing tradition voluntarily releasing taxes to the public. every president, since the year 1977 has been required to undergo mandatory irs artists of their taxes. while that president is in office. this week, two congressional -- revealed the blockbuster news that somehow, somehow, president trump's taxes did not, did not undergo that mandatory audit. trump's taxes did not get audited, in fact, until democrats in the house of representative started asking questions. and that was in the year 2019. which was considerably after donald trump took office. and none of the audits of former president trump's taxes, since, then have even been completed. it is the year 2022. so what happened here? the initial generous explanation for what happened here is that this mandatory audit process just wasn't working properly. given the fact that every

president released their tax returns, you could see how these mandatory audits might have fallen through the cracks. but now, thanks to excellent reporting from charlie savage, and the new york times. we know that simply is not the case. both barack obama, and joe biden, had a chance to audit. and by the irs every year. even though their taxes were already public. so why, or rather how, did one president since richard nixon, to not publicly release his taxes. how did he not get audited. who, at the irs let that happen. for the first nine months of trump's presidency. they are as commissioner wasn't a bomb appointee. he told new york times that his only involvement in trump's tax returns at that time, was making sure they were kept in a secure location. okay. then there is the interim commissioner that trump appointed named david counter looser from 2018 to --

he actually held two jobs at once. he was with the irs commissioner, and assistant treasury secretary. simultaneously. so he was busy. and he did not respond to the new york times request about trump's taxes. but then, for the bulk of trump time in office. the irs was relatively unknown tax layered name chiles reddit. president trump appointed right into the position after reddick wrote an op-ed in force magazine, in 2016. defending then-candidate trump's decision. to not release his taxes. irs commissioner -- so red literally just stepped down from that position october of this year. and when it comes today mandatory presidential audits he also told the new york times this week that he did not attempt to intervene in mr. trump's audit. so, we have two of trump's former irs commissioner saying, effectively, not it. and if there are two hasn't responded to requests for comment. but under all of this, trump's taxes didn't get audited until

houston regrets started nosing around and asking questions. as a reminder, we are a week away from the year 2023. it is literally around the corner. and still, none of trump's mandatory presidential audits have been completed. and to add to all of this. while the iris was looking the other way for president trump. or whatever the virus was doing. somehow, two of trump's top enemies, or nbc perceive them. former fbi director, james comey. former acting fbi director, and mccain. somehow, both of those men got chosen for a supposedly random, and incredibly intense audit by the irs. out of the more than 153 million people who filed taxes, only about 5000 of them get picked for these intensive audits. 150 million, 5000. and somehow, they were both picked. the irs inspector general said earlier that they had seen no

evidence that those picks, or anything but random. just last month, we learned that president trump repeatedly told at least one of his chief of staff that he wanted his enemies investigated by the irs. among those mr. trump's enemy want to investigate and get the irs on. we're, you guessed it, former fbi director. james comey. and his deputy, andrew mccabe. so, what was really happening in terms of the iris? we're going to find out, because charlie savage the new york times is here to talk about all that and more. the ultimate in comfort and support, in sizes up to an h-cup. visit knix.com to find a wireless bra you'll love. flu symptoms hit harder than the common cold. so it takes the right tool for the job... to keep it together. now there's new theraflu flu relief

with a max strength fever fighting formula. the right tool for long lasting flu symptom relief. hot beats flu. worker's comp was about 20% of my total expenses. i needed a worker's comp policy that wasn't going to strangle my business. when we got the quote back from pie, it was a sigh of relief. we did it online, and it was done very quickly. we saved about 30% when we switched to pie. working with pie was extremely easy. i can grow my company while not breaking the bank. ask your agent, or get a quote at easyaspie.com.

research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. wow! what'd you get, ryan? it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual!!! what does it do, bud? it customizes our home insurance so we only pay for what we need! and what did you get, mike? i got a bike. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, getrefunds.com can see if it may qualify for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee. all it takes is eight minutes to get started. then work with professionals to assist your business with its forms and submit the application. go to getrefunds.com to learn more. we have breaking news tonight.

the january 6th final committee report is out. it is 845 pages not we have not had a chance to review all those pages, of course. but for those on the long hair. there are several chapters, to be exact. the first chapter is the big lie. the second, i just titled i want to find 11,780 votes. as president trump's pressure campaign on the. states chapter three, by collectors. and the president of the senate strategy. chapter four, just call it corrupt and leave the rest to me. these are great choices of trump. coates chapter five, a coup in search of a legal theory. chapter six is be there, it

will be wild. president trump's famous quote to his followers to come to the capitol on january 6th. chapter seven, 187 minutes of dereliction. that is reflecting the absolute silence from the white house during the january 6th insurrection. chapter eight, and analysis of the attack. join me to discuss this breaking, breaking, breaking news. it's former u.s. attorney for the east district of michigan, -- thank you for sticking around. and thank goodness you are available to talk about what is a magnum opus from the january six committee. 845 pages, there is going to be a lot to comb through. we were just talking about this at the end of our second conversation. which is, how this body of evidence, 845 pages. could show the justice department something new, if at all. how do you see those investigations cooperating. which is to say, at one point, they're out of.

sink it fell at the house committee was far ahead of the doj, there are some tension there some announced tension in the press between the committee, and the doj. it has felt like in recent weeks to doj, under the leadership of jack smith, the special counsel has become more aggressive. in fact, some of the witnesses whose transcripts have been released have now testified to the doj. who -- now is the house committee is winding its investigation down. how do you think the doj goes forward. and what do you think their timeline is between excessive evidence that the committee now has? >> in a case like this, the just participate have the information. but i think they're probably not happy that the information is also out in the public. because that makes the job a little bit harder. it means that witnesses can't get their story straight. they can start messaging around what they know to be the testimony out there.

to try and taint any future share pull. they might try to intimidate witnesses. so, it is not great that all this is out in the public domain. but it is what it is. based on what we're hearing by the justice department, they have gone but the committee is able to do. because they have some tools like search warrants, granddaughters, and unity. and we know that they use search warrants, for example, to get the cell phone content from john eastman, and for jeffrey clark. that is some of this committee just try to do. so they were sending encrypted messages, that information is available to the public. but i don't know that there anymore are less likely to charge crimes now than they were a week ago, before i knew this was out in the public domain. but i think seeing what is out there, my ability, makes me have the opinion that charges are for more likely than they were before because the evidence as appear to be so strong on the charges that they

are referring. in terms of timeline, i think it's difficult to know when it can be done to fall. this doesn't dish until it committee has done, the justice department has to anticipate cross examination of these witnesses. they did have that the committee. they have to make sure that they can comply with rules of evidence. hearsay is not admissible in the court. so they have to go back to the firsthand witnesses and these things. there is no defense presentation of the democratic committee. the doj has to anticipate potential defenses, and try to listen to them, understand the. determine whether they'd be successful. and only then can they go for it with the case. they do have a realistic clock to give them, i think. because they need to have this trial sentencing before, i, think jenner 2025 when the initiation comes in. because a new president, a new doj could put it into this whole thing. so if you start with that, it's not working back. i think we have to file charges by 2023 at the latest. >> that is an important flag in

the sand, barb. i want to bring in our charlie savage, your washington correspondent. charlie, thus far, the house select committee on january 6th has had kind of an open landscape to make the case that president trump acted in citing interaction. on the charges and rows of the made regarding his actions. they have not been challenged by a dueling committee. but one imagines, when the house republicans take over control of the lower chamber. we are going to see some kind of bizarre row version of the house january six committee. is that your expectation? that republicans are going to try and use their church but these committees to, effectively, muddy the waters. are we going to see a day where we're going to get an 846-page final reports on the bizarre row republican-led january six committee? >> i do think the republicans in the house will use their

authority to investigate this investigation. this is a play we have seen before. with the original russia investigation with special counsel mueller showing his findings about the theory in ties between the trump campaign, and russia, and finding -- and the trump campaign expected to benefit from that interview. and then using its control of the justice department to show the initiation of former attorney general. barr and john durham to show the investigation, to hunt for a basis to accuse him of being trump. to number of conspiracy theories and different ways to try to do that. we're still expecting a final report. just four years later. so the january six committee fixation almost certainly will be investigated by the house republicans next year. and they will look for a basis to muddy it up. i think one place we're already seeing some signs of interest from them is cassidy hutchinson

the deputy whose testimony was so damaging to trump within the supposedly secret service agents. i think that would be one focus they tried to attack to her. >> what of the actual congressman. some of whom, you know, including kevin mccarthy and jim jordan were going to have leadership positions in the next congress and have gotten ethics referrals from the january six committee. an ethics referral is one thing, but do you think the doj's looking more closely their actions? can you imagine the strange twilight zone where those investigate down a six committee are themselves being investigated by the doj? >> yes, i think that's quite likely they are under investigation. jim jordan and kevin mccarthy. we know they were having direct communications with donald trump on january 6th. at this point i suppose i consider them to be witnesses. but i think they would want to know what they had to say. and they'd get a request for an

interview particularly from a recent subpoena. at the justice department's ability to compel their testimony. it is highly sensitive to go after information from a sitting member of congress. but they're not being targeted because their members of congress. they're being targeted because of the conduct, the conversations with donald trump on january 6th. so, i don't see how you investigate this case without talking to them. and maybe their witnesses, maybe their defendants. we'll see how that shakes out. >> charlie, before we. go just a big picture question. the degree to which generally six committee exceeded expectations and the degree to which there added in terms of the information landscape around january 6th. how much they actually changed? for broader swap the american public. let's hear assessment there. >> i think they did a good job. they surprise a lot of people who thought they already know this stuff. the video was on tv for all to see. the media